processDefinition_deleteByKey

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly states the destructive scope (definitions, instances, history via cascade) and guard conditions (fails when instances exist without cascade). Missing irreversibility warnings or authentication requirements that would be expected for a destructive operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences with zero waste: sentence 1 states purpose, sentence 2 documents the critical cascade parameter and its effect, sentence 3 explains validation logic. Information density is high and front-loaded appropriately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the empty input schema and lack of output schema/annotations, the description adequately covers the primary operation (delete by key), side effects (cascade behavior), and error conditions. Could be enhanced with warnings about irreversible data loss or required permissions, but functional completeness is solid.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema is empty (0 parameters), establishing baseline 4. The description compensates by documenting the implied 'cascade' parameter and its boolean semantics (true removes instances/history, false preserves them). It effectively explains the parameter's side effects and validation logic despite schema absence.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description explicitly states the destructive action ('Delete'), scope ('all versions'), target resource ('process definition'), and identifier type ('by key'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tool 'processDefinition_deleteById' (which deletes a specific version) and 'processInstance_delete' (which deletes runtime instances).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit behavioral guidance on the cascade flag ('Set cascade=true to remove all instances and history') and failure conditions ('Fails if active instances exist and cascade is false'). Lacks explicit comparison to 'deleteById' alternative or prerequisite warnings (e.g., required permissions), but the failure condition effectively communicates usage constraints.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.